Tony Snyder appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in his age-and race-discrimination action. After de novo review, see Winkle v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 195 F.3d 418, 420 (8th Cir. 1999), we conclude the district court *569 correctly granted summary judgment. All but two of Snyder’s claims were precluded by a settlement agreement with his former employer, the United States Department of Agriculture. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) (2000) (knowing and voluntary settlement agreements are binding on both parties). As to Snyder’s remaining Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims, we conclude that he failed either to exhaust the available administrative remedies, or to file his civil suit in a timely manner; furthermore, he demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify equitably tolling the filing requirements. See Stevens v. Dep’t of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1, 5-6, 111 S.Ct. 1562, 114 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (requirements for filing timely ADEA claim); Lawrence v. Cooper Cmty., Inc., 132 F.3d 447, 448, 451 (8th Cir. 1998) (timely filing of discrimination complaint is condition precedent to Title VII suit; equitable tolling is premised on employee’s excusable neglect); Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 58 F.3d 1323, 1327, 1329-30 (8th Cir. 1995) (although excusable ignorance may provide basis for equitable tolling when reasonable person in employee’s situation would not be expected to know of possible ADEA violation, such relief should be used only in exceptional circumstances).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.